Sjors Provoost [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-09-10 📝 Original message: I tend to agree it’s ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-09-10
📝 Original message:
I tend to agree it’s just a matter of proposing a Payment Method. However there are various ways to go about it, e.g. what you suggest, but browsers might also get built-in wallets or there might a multi-currency abstraction on top of everything. It’s probably not ideal if we end up with multiple Payment Methods or one that pushes a single approach.
I left a few comments on the working group Github: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/232 <https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/232>;
Sjors
> Op 30 aug. 2018, om 16:15 heeft Christian Decker <decker.christian at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Just a quick followup on this: yes, I am indeed a member of the W3C Web
> Payments Working Group, though not a very active one. I am following the
> discussion as best I can, and try to figure out what changes and special
> considerations, if any, are needed for both Bitcoin and Lightning to
> work correctly, when the spec is finalized and deployed.
>
> As it stands today the spec should be Bitcoin and Lightning compatible,
> with the following considerations:
>
> - A special Payment Method ID [1] must be assigned to Bitcoin and
> Lightning since we cannot rely on a centralized URL to act as a
> payment method for these decentralized networks. Currently only the
> `basic-card` identifier has been assigned, but we can apply for one
> eventually;
> - As far as I see a local handler can be specified as Payment Handler
> [2] allowing us to have a Bitcoin or Lightning daemon running locally
> that is invoked for payment requests;
> - The Payment Request API [3] even mentions XBT as a supported
> currency, in addition to ISO4217 codes, so if a vendor publishes a
> Bitcoin amount and a matching Payment Method, we should be able to
> perform the payment;
> - Since we require special handling for Bitcoin and Lightning
> w.r.t. the Payment Method, the Payment Method Manifest [4] doesn't
> apply to us.
>
> So all in all, we should be able to get Bitcoin and Lightning working
> with the spec without any major roadblocks. Notice that this is based
> solely on my current understanding of the spec, and I'd love for others
> to chime in and point out anything that I might have missed.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-handler/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/
> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-manifest/
>
> René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>
>> Hey lightning devs,
>>
>> I was wondering if any of the companies here are members of W3C and if
>> anyone here could be member of the W3C Web Payments Working Group (c.f.:
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ )? According to this mail
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-March.txt
>> Christian Decker is a member. Which I think would be awesome!
>>
>> They have just released their candidate recommendation for a payment API
>> at: https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ According to their site the
>> proposed recommendation will be published not earlier than October 31st
>> 2018. They are currently looking for feedback in their github repository
>> at: https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/
>>
>> I can see that they have bitcoin somewhat on their mind. But I guess it
>> would be even cooler if we could make sure that lightning payments will
>> also be compatible with their recommendation.
>>
>> Christian - if you really are a member - could you give us an update on
>> that work? How relevant is it for us?
>>
>> best Rene
>>
>> --
>> https://www.rene-pickhardt.de
>>
>> Skype: rene.pickhardt
>>
>> mobile: +49 (0)176 5762 3618
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180910/0cf084c6/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180910/0cf084c6/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:
I tend to agree it’s just a matter of proposing a Payment Method. However there are various ways to go about it, e.g. what you suggest, but browsers might also get built-in wallets or there might a multi-currency abstraction on top of everything. It’s probably not ideal if we end up with multiple Payment Methods or one that pushes a single approach.
I left a few comments on the working group Github: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/232 <https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/232>;
Sjors
> Op 30 aug. 2018, om 16:15 heeft Christian Decker <decker.christian at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Just a quick followup on this: yes, I am indeed a member of the W3C Web
> Payments Working Group, though not a very active one. I am following the
> discussion as best I can, and try to figure out what changes and special
> considerations, if any, are needed for both Bitcoin and Lightning to
> work correctly, when the spec is finalized and deployed.
>
> As it stands today the spec should be Bitcoin and Lightning compatible,
> with the following considerations:
>
> - A special Payment Method ID [1] must be assigned to Bitcoin and
> Lightning since we cannot rely on a centralized URL to act as a
> payment method for these decentralized networks. Currently only the
> `basic-card` identifier has been assigned, but we can apply for one
> eventually;
> - As far as I see a local handler can be specified as Payment Handler
> [2] allowing us to have a Bitcoin or Lightning daemon running locally
> that is invoked for payment requests;
> - The Payment Request API [3] even mentions XBT as a supported
> currency, in addition to ISO4217 codes, so if a vendor publishes a
> Bitcoin amount and a matching Payment Method, we should be able to
> perform the payment;
> - Since we require special handling for Bitcoin and Lightning
> w.r.t. the Payment Method, the Payment Method Manifest [4] doesn't
> apply to us.
>
> So all in all, we should be able to get Bitcoin and Lightning working
> with the spec without any major roadblocks. Notice that this is based
> solely on my current understanding of the spec, and I'd love for others
> to chime in and point out anything that I might have missed.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-handler/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/
> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-manifest/
>
> René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>
>> Hey lightning devs,
>>
>> I was wondering if any of the companies here are members of W3C and if
>> anyone here could be member of the W3C Web Payments Working Group (c.f.:
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ )? According to this mail
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-March.txt
>> Christian Decker is a member. Which I think would be awesome!
>>
>> They have just released their candidate recommendation for a payment API
>> at: https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ According to their site the
>> proposed recommendation will be published not earlier than October 31st
>> 2018. They are currently looking for feedback in their github repository
>> at: https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/
>>
>> I can see that they have bitcoin somewhat on their mind. But I guess it
>> would be even cooler if we could make sure that lightning payments will
>> also be compatible with their recommendation.
>>
>> Christian - if you really are a member - could you give us an update on
>> that work? How relevant is it for us?
>>
>> best Rene
>>
>> --
>> https://www.rene-pickhardt.de
>>
>> Skype: rene.pickhardt
>>
>> mobile: +49 (0)176 5762 3618
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180910/0cf084c6/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20180910/0cf084c6/attachment.sig>;